Monday, June 7, 2010

Democrats and Independents

There's good news and bad news for Democrats when it comes to independents and this fall's election. The party's candidates are still losing them in almost every important contest- but it's not by nearly the margins that led to losses in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Virginia in the key races so far this cycle.

Our final polls in those contests found Scott Brown leading Martha Coakley by 32 with independents, Bob McDonnell up 30 on Creigh Deeds with them, and Chris Christie holding a 23 point edge over Jon Corzine.

The Democratic candidate is losing independents in 7 of the 9 key Senate races we've polled over the last three months. But it's not by more than 15 points in any of those instances and the average deficit is only 7 points, a far cry from the mean of 28 points in those contests that have already occurred.

Michael Bennet and Joe Sestak actually led by small margins with independents on our most recent polls in Colorado and Pennsylvania. Alexi Giannoulias and Elaine Marshall trailed by amounts within the margin of error.

Democrats still have a lot of ground to pick up with independents but things are looking much better than they were six months ago. Here's the full data:

30 comments:

In NJ, VA, MA: Republicans' margins among independents INCREASED as election day neared. As voters get to know the candidates more, there is plenty of time for Republican margins to grow, just as they did in NJ, VA, MA. Actually, it is quite remarkable that Democrats are losing this badly this early in the year.

And again, Republicans do not need to overcome such a big registration disadvantage as they did in MA or NJ, nor do they need to blowout the Democrat by 18 points like they did in VA. These findings show plenty of reason to suspect major Republican gains in November.

Christian Liberty makes a good point that these early polls are indicators of where the race stands now, not where the race is headed. I.e., if independents are leaning this far GOP now, just imagine how far they'll go when the candidates are running good, appeal-to-the-center, kinds of campaigns in the fall.

Regarding Romanoff -- I think there's a good chance we'll see him gain some momentum and pick of Bennett, but he still has a lot to overcome. I'd bet 3 to 1 on Bennett right now.

It would be interesting to see some trendlines on these numbers. Similarly, it would be nice to have some identifier ("Who did you vote for in 2008 for president" or "did you belong to a party before") to identify how many of these 'independents' today are part of the exodus out of the Republican party that Bush caused. If (for example, not real numbers) Democrats hold a ten-point registration advantage today and held a five point registration advantage previously, and those five points came because a large bloc of Republicans switched to officially being independents, the outcome hasn't changed.

I am licking my chops. Democratic voters are not even engaged yet. The Democrats have been relentlessly beat down and still we are tied. Things are turning around and Crazy Party will not prosper. That is what the right is, the Crazies. A relic of history. Christian is both delusional and misinformed. The pros know Democrats are coming back and are going to be fine. Tom is hinting at it without trying to be obvious. But he is a pro and he already knows. The low point for Democrats is 51 percent of the two party vote. Pros know. If the right keeps associating themselves with fringe elements I would not be surprised to see gains for Democrats match recent elections.

If you think all crazies are on the left stop looking in the mirror. Nobody who thinks the like of Beck and Palin are rational can be credible. I mean they are of the eugenics Hitler ilk. Not rational, not welcome, not relevant. No fringe group is gong to win the mainstream. Will not happen. Marginal gains concentrated in the South and anal retentive Midwest, at best, the rest of the country keeps Dems at 225 at 57. The wager is still available.

"Drill, Baby, Drill" is apparently the slogan of "rational and responsible adults." It's true that Republicans are responsible for a lot of the problems America faces today, such as Iraq, Afghanistan, the deregulation that enabled the gulf oil spill and the economic crisis and the housing collapse, or the enormous deficits Reagan, Bush, and Bush rang up; that's something they don't really want to remind voters of, though. As for rational, well, I suppose they haven't quite reached the point of being living divide-by-zero errors yet; that's only their ideology.

In Virginia, everyone is an independent unless s/he decides to specifically join a party.

I believe there is something similar in Massachusetts where you have to actually declare your party choice or you are an unaffiliated voter.

This naturally means that a candidate has to carry many more independents to win and that there are usually many more people who call themselves "independent" or "unaffiliated" in states like Mass. & VA.

It would be interesting to know what other states follow the same kind of system (I grew up in Maryland and live in VA now. In MD, one must declare a party when registering to vote or one may not vote in the primary elections - closed elections).

It was EXCESSIVE REGULATION that caused the oil spill. It was TOO MUCH REGULATION that moved oil drill into dangerous deep water projects. Deregulation IS THE SOLUTION. Deregulation MAKES US SAFER. With deregulation, companies can RATIONALLY drill where it is safer and less risky, in SHALLOWER water, CLOSER TO SHORE, and ON LAND.

The oil spill is entirely the fault of environmental wacko extremists, progressive kooks, and Democrats.

As for Hitler Jeez Louise he describes Palin to a tee. Including the racial component of the Tea People. Calling Hitler left is like calling Alex Rodriguez all natural. The Bushes funded the Nazis, not exactly the American left.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/simple/index.php/t5909.html

Alan Bullock, Hitler: A Study in Tyranny

By calling themselves "National Socialists", the NSDAP was attempting to woo the left-wing citizenry merely by coopting the terminology. The "national" combined with the "sozialistische" implied that the nation as a whole would control the means of production. During his rise, Hitler exploited social unrest by promising workers to back labor unions and increase the standard of living. The reality was quite different: the Nationalsozialistische party only represented nationalists, as defined by the NDSAP and represented by the ruling elite, not the nation as a whole. And it was only a corporate oligarchy which owned much of anything. Under the National Socialists in Germany, the system of government was a combination of aristocracy and capitalism (extreme right and centrist). The workers, "the people", owned and controlled nothing - as they would under socialism or any left-wing government.

Private German businessmen owned and controlled the means of production - and answered to the National Socialist Party. The NDSAP "Charter of Labor" gave employers complete power over their workers and established the employer as the "leader of the enterprise," and dictated that the owner "makes the decisions for the employees and laborers in all matters concerning the enterprise".

Contrary to their promises, the NDSAP outlawed trade unions, collective bargaining, and the right to strike. They formed the "Labor Front" which replaced the old trade unions and which did not represent workers - and workers' wages fell by 20-25%. Industries, trusts, and military production were not nationalized and remained in the hands of private owners under the control of the party. Granted, the NDSAP did nationalize a few utilities - such as the railroads - and created a few public works programs such as the construction of the Autobahn. But these were primarily in order to facilitate the war industry and such "nationalization" did not mean that these were owned by the people, but by the government - and were built with materials which fed back into the capitalist oligarchs. The German National Socialists, like the Italian Fascists, were corporatists.

So: in terms of economics, the NDSAP was right-wing. In terms of government structure, the NDSAP was right-wing. In terms of social policy, the NDSAP was right-wing. In terms of militarism, the NDSAP was right-wing. I fail to see how anyone can possibly argue that the Nazis were leftist.

Wow... That is some deep delusion right there. Just sad, really. I'm sure there's a tiny minority of people out there who agree with Rand Paul and think that things like the Civil Rights Act and Social Security and Medicare are 'evils' that came from the left, over the vigorous opposition of the right (even back in the day when both parties actually had left and right wings). I'm sure you're in that 19% who think Sarah Palin is qualified to be president, too. You're a joke, and so deeply buried in your own echo chamber you don't understand why people are laughing at you.

Holy Monkey Fur Batman! Christian needs some meds. He just said I could not be moral or intelligent because I don't support Palin! Wowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww! That is wholly irrational. I support President Obama but if you don't that doesn't mean I think you are immoral.

All evil or good does not come from a singular source. There is no perfect ideology. Only apparently, perfect fantasies.

No, NRH, the MAJORITY of people want a less intrusive federal government. A majority of people stand by Rand Paul. If you don't understand why Rand Paul is overwhelmingly popular, then you are delusional.

Socialist Insecurity and MediSCARE ARE EVIL. Any honest, rational, moral person knows that these programs are evil!! It is EVIL to STEAL from taxpayers so that politicians can buy votes with other people's money. That makes Socialist Insecurity and MediSCARE 100% EVIL.

And Sarah Palin is more qualified to be president than the EMBARRASSMENT of a buffoon that is "president" now. Anyone who thinks Obama is a better president is a JOKE.

NRH, EVERYTHING you said is a JOKE. EVERYTHING you said is a LAUGHABLE. Informed people are LAUGHING AT YOU!!

Every detail that you described about National Socialism is applicable to all socialist countries - Cuba, North Korea, USSR. You can even notice that Venesuela is not terribly different from the Nazi Germany as far as economic policies go.

I suggest you read up a little bit on socialism before you rush into discussion.

There's clearly no point in continuing; when someone declares and believes that 'Rand Paul is overwhelmingly popular' at the same time they think Sarah Palin would make a good president, you know you're dealing with someone in that tiny little fringe of lunatics. 71% of Americans agree outright that Palin is unqualified to be president at all, let alone better than Obama. And the anti-Medicare, anti-Social Security stance is another sign of a deranged Free Stater. Next we'll see a defense of the 'sovereign citizen' movement.